Mehboob Khan S/O. Usman Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

915-WP-106-2021.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.106 OF 2021

¶4

MEHBOOB KHAN S/O. USMAN KHAN
VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶6

...

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. T. Y. Sayyed
APP for Respondents: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale
...

¶8

CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J

¶9

DATE:SEPTEMBER 08, 2023

¶10

PER COURT :

¶11

1.This Petition takes exception takes exception

¶12

to the charge framed by the learned Special Court in
Special (Electricity) Case No. 85/2020 for the offences
punishable under Sections 135(B), 135(B) and Section
138(B) of Electricity Act (for short ‘the Act’).

¶13

2.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits

¶14

that there is absolutely no material on record to frame
charge against the Petitioner on all three counts. It
is his submission that from the charge-sheet it does
not appear that there is no allegation of commission of
theft of electricity against accused persons. Thus,
according to him, for this reason offence punishable
under Section 135(b) has no application. With regard to

¶15

Page 1 of 5

¶16

915-WP-106-2021.odt

¶17

the charge farmed under Section 135(b), it is submitted
that in absence of any material to show that possession
of the meter was without consent of the owner, the
charge is not tenable. Third charge framed against him
is under Section 138(b). In this regard, it is
submitted that for attracting the said offence,
unauthorized re-connection of meter is essential. Thus,
it is his submission that charge framed against the
Petitioner does not sustain.

¶18

3.Learned APP opposed the said contention by
referring to the first information report and
statements recorded during the investigation. It is his
submission that the meter concerning the electricity
company is found in the possession of Petitioner, which
prima facie sufficient to indicate the commission of
offence. He further states that the offence is also
attracted under the provisions of Section 138(d) of the
Act.

¶19

4.At the outset, it needs to be recorded that no
charge has been framed against the Petitioner under
Section 138(d) of the Act, hence, submission made by
learned APP in this regard need not be considered.

¶20

Page 2 of 5

¶21

915-WP-106-2021.odt

¶22

5.As regards the charge under Section 135(b) is
concerned, the pre-requisite for framing of said charge
is theft of electricity. Perusal of Section 135(1)(b)
of the Act indicates that whoever tampers the meter
whereby the electricity is stolen or wasted is said to
have committed offence. With regard to said, in absence
of any theft of electricity is done by the Petitioner,
the said offence does not get attracted against
Petitioner. In so far as offence under Section 138(b)
is concerned, in absence of allegation that he
unauthorizedly reconnected any meter, the same charge
also could not have been framed.

¶23

6.As regards the offence punishable under
Section 136(b) of the Act is concerned, perusal of
Section 136(b), which reads thus:

¶24

Section 136 : Theft of electric lines and
materials.

¶25

(a)xxx
(b)stores, possesses or otherwise keeps
in his premises, custody or control, any
electric line, material or meter without
the consent of the owner, whether or not
the act is committed for profit or gain

¶26

Above provision clearly demonstrates that

¶27

whoever dishonestly possess, stores or even keeps in

¶28

Page 3 of 5

¶29

915-WP-106-2021.odt

¶30

his premises any meter or material not with consent of

¶31

owner, whether or not act is committed for profit or
gain, is said to have committed offence. In the instant
case, there is material on record to indicate that the
electric meter belonging to the Electricity Company was
possessed by the present Petitioner. As far as the
contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner
that in absence of any material to indicate that
without consent of the owner the said possession is
found, the offence is not made out, it needs to be
recorded that Petitioner does not claim ownership of
electricity meter which are found with him along with
other material including parts thereof. There is no
dispute about the fact that the articles seized from
Petitioner are not meters or material un-connected with
distribution of electricity.

¶32

7.The law on the point of framing of charge

¶33

against accused is fairly settled. Hon’ble Apex Court
in case ofUnion of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal
(1979) 3 SCC 4has held that at the stage of framing of
charge i.e., at initial stage there is strong suspicion
which leads the Court to think that there is ground for

¶34

Page 4 of 5

¶35

915-WP-106-2021.odt

¶36

presuming that the accused has committed an offence.
Thus, it is not open for the Court to say that there is
no sufficient ground to proceed against accused. In
case ofState Of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal
and Ors, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 335 it is observed by Apex
Court that if strong suspicion exist in the mind of the
Court at the stage concerned, then same is sufficient
to frame charge against accused. Having regard to the
law settled, this Court finds no infirmity in finding
of charge under Section 136(b) of the Act against
Petitioner.

¶37

8.In view of above discussion, Petition deserves
to be partly allowed. Resultantly, charge framed
against Petitioner under Section 136(b) of the Act is
maintained. Rest of part of the impugned order dated
16.12.2020 is set aside. It is clarified that these
observations are made prima facie for the decision of
this Petition and learned trial Court not to get
influenced by the same during trial.

¶38

Malani

¶39

Page 5 of 5

Mehboob Khan S/O. Usman Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mehboob Khan S/O. Usman Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikas Daulatrao Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vikas Daulatrao Wagh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vijay Shivaji Kanwade Vs Seema W/O. Vijay Kanwade and Others

Sudhakar Gunjaji Wadje Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Osmankhan Ahmedkhan Golandaj Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Javed Khan S/O. Abdul Hameed Khan and Others Vs Firdous D/O. Aziz Ahmed @ Firdous W/O. Sayed Azharuddin